2 Corinthians 1:17

βουλόμενος. This recalls ἐβουλόμην (2 Corinthians 1:15). As this, then, was my wish, did I at all exhibit lightness? The article is probably generic and may be omitted in English (A.V., R.V.): but it may mean ‘the levity of which you accuse me.’ Comp. τῇ ὑποταγῇ (Galatians 2:5). Like πεποίθησις (2 Corinthians 1:15), ἐλαφρία (here only in Biblical Greek) is of late formation from ἐλαφρός (2 Corinthians 4:17; Matthew 11:30), as πικρία from πικρός, &c. As always, μήτι = num, and expects a negative reply: 2 Corinthians 12:18; James 3:11; John 4:29; John 8:22; John 18:35, &c.

κατὰ σάρκα. Comp. ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ (2 Corinthians 1:12). It means, according to the unprincipled motives of a worldly man, which have no unity, no seriousness, and so are ever shifting; and not according to the guidance of conscience and of the Holy Spirit: 2 Corinthians 10:3; Galatians 5:16. Chrysostom defines the σαρκικός as ὁ τοῖς παροῦσι προσηλωμένος καὶ ἐν τούτοις διαπαντὸς ὤν, καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνεργείας ἐκτὸς τυγχάνων, so that he follows his own fancies and desires.

τὸ Ναί ναὶ καὶ τὸ Οὔ οὔ. The article may again be either generic, and be omitted in English, or mean ‘that with which you charge me.’ In the latter case it corresponds to our inverted commas; comp. Ephesians 4:9; Galatians 4:25. The repetition is for emphasis, as in ἀμήν, ἀμήν; and the meaning possibly is that, in his levity of character, what he says cannot be relied upon. There may be allusion to something in his letters. In 1 Corinthians 16:5-8 he promised to come to them. In the second lost letter, between our First and Second, he may have said something different. See notes on 2 Corinthians 2:3 and 2 Corinthians 7:8. The conjectural reading, τὸ ναὶ οὔ καὶ τὸ οὔ ναί (Baljon, Markland, Michaelis, Naber), has no authority.

Some commentators, both ancient and modern, interpret the ‘yea yea’ and ‘nay nay’ as meaning ‘that out of proud self-will, when I decide to do a thing, I do it, and when I decide not to do a thing, I refuse to do it, without considering the will of God.’ Even if the words can mean this, it does not fit the context. He was not charged with obstinacy, but with want of steadfastness: and there is no hint of an opposition between his will and God’s will. Rather, he asks them, whether they think that, like an unscrupulous man of the world, he says Yes and No in the same breath. ‘Do I follow mere whims, that there should be in my life a perpetual variation,—a decision to-day, an alteration to-morrow, refusal following on consent?’